Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Phoebe Bump, Dec 21, 2015.

Page 22 of 37
  1. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is you appealing to ignorance and ignoring the second clause.

    Your argument is predicated on willful ignorance
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 5, 2016
    #526
  2. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    47,987
    Likes Received:
    6,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Invalid OP in the Extreme.Our Founders were assuredly No Special Interest group.
    It's the SECOND Amendment.Not the 22nd. Or the 14th Amendment.
    Maybe it was wise for this " so-called conservative " to Retire.Just in time for his
    Senility afternoon naps.This Burger Meister obviously became unglued.
    " Experience hath shewn,that even under the best forms of government,those
    entrusted with power have,in time,and by slow operations,perverted it
    into tyranny. " -- Thomas Jefferson {1778}
     
    Foolardi, Jan 5, 2016
    #527
  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry; you are not superior enough to call me on it on your own initiative. You need to cite the rules of construction regarding laws.

    If you are too inferior to do so on your own, I will be happy to provide that moral superiority for you and cite the rules of construction from The Federalist Papers Number Forty.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yes, they were not that smart if they have to appeal to ignorance of the law.
     
    danielpalos, Jan 5, 2016
    #528
  4. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113

    It is virtually impossible to hide behind a basic human right. Only to support it or oppose it.
     
    jdog, Jan 5, 2016
    #529
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The construction is irrelevant the law means what it says and proves you wrong.

    The intellectually inferior ignore it as you are doing
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #530
  6. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry; that line of reasoning is too inferior to be taken seriously. There Must be an Organized way to interpret laws. The Federalist: Number Forty gives an most excellent description of those rules.

    You cannot ignore the superiority of Plain Reason or even legal axioms.

     
    danielpalos, Jan 6, 2016
    #531
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes plain reason and axioms all dictate that the law means what it says. The organized way to interpret laws is english comprehension.

    The law proves you wrong and intellectually inferior no matter how many straws you grasp at to scream that it means something else.
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #532
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The law proves me right; you are just not superior enough to realize it.

     
    danielpalos, Jan 6, 2016
    #533
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It proves you wrong plain and simple.

    That is fact only fools say it means what you are claiming
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #534
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You are simply not superior enough to make it stick, especially with nothing but non sequiturs which are usually considered fallacies, which Only the inferior have to resort to.

    How do you account for this clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

    Which must be Made to conspire to some common End and not simply ignored.
     
    danielpalos, Jan 6, 2016
    #535
  11. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is you stating fallacies and especially non sequiturs.You are willfully ignoring the second part.

    The first part clearly refers to a need for national defense but the second clearly refers to individual rights and that is the only logical reasonable and intelligent meaning.

    Like all rights in the bill of rights it refers to individual rights and the people means individual citizens not select exclusive groups.

    That is what it says and means and it proves you wrong.

    You have to ignore the second and relevant part in order to accept your idiotic and intellectually weak spin
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #536
  12. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why are people still debating this guy. Your only appealing to ignorance.
     
    Penrod, Jan 6, 2016
    #537
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated. Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State. Thus, not all of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, but only well regulated militias
     
    danielpalos, Jan 6, 2016
    #538
  14. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is irrelevant to all people having the same right.

    The right is not limited to militia members
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #539
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, the right to not be Infringed only belongs to well regulated militia. It must be so to suppress Insurrections of gun lovers of the People.
     
    danielpalos, Jan 6, 2016
    #540
  16. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it does not.

    It says no such thing no matter how much you lie about it in childish fashion.

    The people means individual citizens not exclusive members of militia
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #541
  17. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah so you're saying the US militia is there to suppress it's own people if they rise up against the government now?
     
    vman12, Jan 6, 2016
    #542
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it doesn't. You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law.

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    The right to not be Infringed only belongs to well regulated militia. It must be so to suppress Insurrections of gun lovers of the People.
     
    danielpalos, Jan 6, 2016
    #543
  19. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you are wrong and ignorant.

    Not ignorant as in unaware but willfully and deliberately ignoring facts which prove you wrong.

    The people means individual citizens and that is who's right is specifically protected from infringement.

    Your italicized quote is not from the second amendment sorry you lose again.
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #544
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is you who are doing that; you have no valid rebuttal.

    Well regulated militia may Infringe on Insurrectionists and Rebels of Individuals of the People, by Constitutional law.
     
    danielpalos, Jan 6, 2016
    #545
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I do have a valid rebuttal which crushed your lame opinion.

    Making up crap about rebels and insurrectionists does not prove anything at all.

    The second amendment states the people, the people means individual citizens.

    Case closed and you are proven an intellectual weakling
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #546
  22. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The only one here appareling to ignorance is yourself. The rest of us keep denying your appeal.
     
    Penrod, Jan 6, 2016
    #547
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The Second Article of Amendment is Not a Constitution unto itself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    You have no valid argument. Why not stop pretending you know anything.
     
    danielpalos, Jan 6, 2016
    #548
  24. Penrod

    Penrod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Look whos talking :roflol:

    The fact that no one backs your claims says a lot.
     
    Penrod, Jan 6, 2016
    #549
  25. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one said or implied it is a constitution unto itself and it does not need to be a constitution unto itself to be read and understood which you refuse to do.

    Yes I have a valid argument supported by the second amendment itself which proves your entire argument from start to finish to be wrong and invalid.

    I know more than you and that is obvious
     
    Soupnazi, Jan 6, 2016
    #550
Page 22 of 37

Share This Page